Rather than rehash all the conversations about the identity or motive of the person who killed the United Healthcare CEO, I'd love to have a discussion about the policy window it seems to have opened. This is the first time we've seen widespread, bi-partisan support for an issue - seemingly medicare for all - but I can't find anyone actually talking about policy. None of the big legacy media organizations like BBC or CNN, or your typical cast of medicare for all characters like Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure if silence on the topic to insulate folks from being labelled "cold or heartless", but it seems like systematic issues with the insurance industry is at the core of what has everyone so riled up. Am I missing some large scale discussion happening that is actually focusing on regulatory change or is it just not happening?

Maybe to the heart of the question for those better informed than myself: What can we do from a grassroots perspective to push for regulatory reform while this is still fresh in the public eye? There seems to be momentum, can it be funneled into something meaningful?

I realize the threads I've seen on the topic have been locked, so if you participate in the discussion please keep this policy related. We all have strong feeling about what happened, but as much as we can let's stay on topic.

Have you ever received notice that you might be eligible for something from a class-action settlement? Ever notice that the effort required to recover is significant, and the recovery perhaps insultingly miniscule?

I don't know of any data, but I suspect that's true of nearly every class action lawsuit, even those that win in court battles. Maybe the original plaintiffs get a decent recovery, sometimes there's injunctive relief (which means the court forces the defendant to do or not do something). Every once in a while, individual members of the class get a meaningful outcome (vw's dieselgate comes to mind).

The public interest justification for the outcomes where the recover for class members is really small, if one is even ever really offered, is that the cost of the action to the defendant serves as an inducement to all defendants to keep their act together. But see, Tyler Durden's explanation of the actuarial function from Fight Club.

My thought is that instead of any recovery for the individual class members ("fuck 'em, right?"), their portion of the money should go to a public interest fund dedicated to consumer protection. My reason for this is that these small recoveries don't make any useful change for the individual class member consumers. But collectively, might add up to enough to make a meaningful difference to the future activities of producers.

Of course, all the usual caveats about corruption and accountability come into play. But there's a few reasons it might help, if those can be overcome. First, it might prompt faster, lest costly settlements. The payouts would be lower, and also the transaction costs. This shifts the litigation process from focussing on big recoveries to high volume of suits, bringing in more defendants. It would also enable smaller firms to bring suit, the hope being that smaller firms would take on more marginal cases and get more action.

Second, it might actually create a feedback loop. If the fund gets large enough, it could lobby and investigate, providing more information more new suits, and identifying the worst actors, and encouraging useful regulation. Imagine if Consumers Union could return to its glory of the 80's and have a big lobbying fund?

Or, we could just have decent government level consumer protections (hahhahahahahahahah!)